October 29, 2006

And Faggot Sex Is Icky!

[UPDATE: I must offer an important clarification. In the post below, when I refer to pornography as being "fabulous," I intended that judgment to be taken only in this specific context. That is: I view pornography as a very positive and important good to the extent it reflects the view of sex as embodying undiluted joy and pleasure. In fact, it is undeniably true that many people work in pornography as the result of terribly destructive and frequently awful personal and broader cultural factors -- including a profoundly negative view of women in particular. It is also true that a great deal of pornography, especially (I am told by people I respect and trust on this point) heterosexual pornography, continues and amplifies viciously damaging and negative ideas. I discussed all this in some detail in an essay from about a year ago, which I shall repost shortly.

...And here it is: Let's Talk About Sex!, from November 16, 2005. I still haven't had time to pursue many of the questions I indicated at the end of that entry. I hope to get to some of them in the next month or two.

...I want to briefly add the following: a significant part of the reason I referred to pornography as "fabulous" -- again, in this particular context -- is that I was reacting to Marshall's post. Like almost everyone in our culture, Marshall was inadvertently revealing the profoundly negative view of sex that is so common to most of us. His sex-negative attitude was revealed in connection with "icky" gay sex -- but most people have the same attitude about heterosexual sex. As I indicated in this essay, our culture is deeply hypocritical and simply nuts on the subject of sex generally. I mentioned the national breakdown that followed the glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast. This kind of overreaction is typical, and it arises out of a profound immaturity about sex. We are unable to talk about it sensibly at all -- and we treat it as a dirty, filthy secret for the most part.

So I deliberately use words like "fabulous" and "great" to describe sex, because I am trying to blast these attitudes entirely out of existence. They are incomprehensibly destructive -- and they are wrong. As I've indicated, I will be writing considerably more about these issues. I hope to get to some of it soon.]

Democrats like to portray themselves as being the leaders in the fight for equal rights, and for dignity for all people, regardless of race, sex, class and sexual orientation. Wait a second. Since I'm writing a post about things that truly annoy me, that phrase -- "sexual orientation" -- annoys me a lot, and it has for a long time. To some extent, it conveys the idea that being gay or straight is a choice -- that you choose to "orient" yourself this way or that. In fact, every gay or lesbian I've ever known (and I've known a great many in my life), and every gay or lesbian I've ever read about, never experienced it as a choice, and the scientific evidence to date does not support such a contention. Almost every gay and lesbian knows by the age of about seven (or even earlier) that he or she is "different" in some important way, although the thought carries no specifically sexual content at that age (or almost none). That was certainly true in my case.

So let's call it "sexual identity." I think that's much more accurate, and that's what it is.

Back to the Democrats. There's been a lot of nastiness in this campaign. I'm not interested here in apportioning blame; perhaps most of the sleaze emanates from the Republicans. I haven't been following enough campaigns closely enough, but for my purposes here, I'll accept that as a given. But in light of their performance over the last decade (or longer), I don't expect anything else, and I certainly don't expect anything better from the Republicans generally. Nor should any perceptive observer.

But I do expect more from the Democrats -- and the Democrats certainly tell me and everyone else that I should expect more and better from them. So I am seriously dismayed when I come across entries like this one from Josh Marshall. I don't question the central point of Marshall's post, which concerns Mehlman's hypocrisy -- as Marshall notes in parenthetical comments at the end:

(ed.note: Let me say, for the record, that I consider pornography not only a legal but a morally unobjectionable product. People in that industry have as much right to participate in the political process as anyone else. And it's difficult for the head of a political committee or a candidate in a political campaign to know the background of every contributor. But hypocrisy blows. And on this issue, as on others, Ken Mehlman's a hypocrite.)

Marshall points out that the RNC ran an anti-Harold Ford ad that included the accusation that Ford accepted political contributions from "porn movie producers." Marshall then makes his central charge, and his case for hypocrisy: "It turns out that the Republican National Committee is a regular recipient of political contributions from Nicholas T. Boyias, the owner and CEO of Marina Pacific Distributors, one of the largest producers and distributors of gay porn in the United States." (Now you see why "blows" might be more than mere carelessness, and perhaps even deliberate.)

To make his case even stronger, Marshall notes: "The company actually seems to be a trendsetter in the industry" -- and provides some evidence for that proposition. In other words, Boyias engages in what Marshall himself calls "not only a legal but morally unobjectionable product" -- and Boyias actually treats his business as a serious one. It appears that you can sell gay porn, but if you treat it fully as a legitimate and serious business...well, perhaps that's just a blow(job) too far. Otherwise, why provide this amount of detail?

Now, you may be thinking: "Oh, Arthur, you're just being too sensitive. We kind of understand that, given the extent to which Republicans have made gay-baiting a central part of their election strategy for years. But we're on your side! We're for equality and dignity for gays!"

And here is my reply, and here is the giveaway in Marshall's post. In the middle of his case against Mehlman, Marshall drops this paragraph into the mix -- a paragraph that is entirely gratuitous and unnecessary to any point he's making:

Some recent releases include "Fire in the Hole", "Flesh and Boners", even a "Velvet Mafia" series.

Marshall even helpfully provides links to each of the films, so you can enjoy further details at your leisure.

Let's be blunt, shall we? If a Republican did this, Democrats would see the problem immediately. They would know that the message being conveyed, and none too subtly, is: "See??!!! Gay sex is really disgusting! "Fire in the Hole"! [I assume all the grownups know just what "hole" is being referred to here.] Ick! "Flesh and Boners"! Double ick! Faggot sex is really, really icky! And these people are icky too, for accepting this icky money!" And I just noticed that the "Velvet Mafia" link takes you to a page that lists other titles, including ones like "Virgin Asses."

ICK ICK ICK ICK ICK ICK ICKY ICK ICK ICK

Democrats are very careless about issues like this far too often. It makes me wonder just how comfortable some of them are with icky gays, and with icky gay sex. I repeat that, in addition to the element of overkill more generally in Marshall's post, the inclusion of the titles of these films is entirely unnecessary. It adds nothing of substance at all. Since that is the case, one legitimately wonders just what the point is supposed to be. Other than the "ick" factor, I see none.

I mention this for a further reason: the Democrats exhibited the same kind of carelessness with regard to the Foley scandal. I've noted that the element of political opportunism on the part of many Democrats was very plainly revealed by the hugely obvious and crucially related problem that they never address: if they are so concerned about "protecting the children," why don't they seek to eliminate the ongoing brutalization of children in the form of corporal punishment in government-funded schools? Given the immensely destructive effects of such brutalization, it is despicable, criminal and unforgivable that this issue continues to be entirely neglected by our governing class, Republicans and Democrats alike. If the Democrats care so deeply about "human dignity," there is no better place to fight that battle.

But beyond this, the carelessness with which the Foley story was treated by far too many people also leads to further destructive consequences -- and one of the primary ones is the reinforcement of deeply negative stereotypes of gay men. John Nichols is the only writer of whom I'm aware who has discussed this issue in the detail it deserves. You should read his entire article, which also provides an unusual degree of insight into Foley himself, as well as into the real nature of the scandal involved.

In connection with the issues I'm addressing here, I want to excerpt a passage from the beginning of Nichols' piece:

The focus on Foley is problematic for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, it turns what ought to be a discussion about the win-at-any-cost approach of the Republicans who run Congress into a wildly speculative discourse on one troubled man and what his experience says about everything from pedophilia to workplace ethics to privacy and gays in politics. Everyone is getting into the act, from moralizing conservatives -- like Family Reserach Council Tony Perkins claiming that "tolerance and diversity" are to blame for the whole mess -- to Desperate Democrats describing Foley as a "pedophile predator." The tone of the discussion is especially disturbing at a time when right-wing forces have placed anti-gay initiatives on the November 7 ballots in eight states. Prospects for beating those measures in states such as Wisconsin, Colorado and Arizona are not helped by discussions that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, reinforce inaccurate yet persistent stereotypes.

See Nichols' article for many more details as to why discussing these issues in this manner is so damaging, and so inaccurate. And in terms of these particular concerns, I'm simply tempted to say: Thanks for precisely nothing, Democrats.

I'm obviously generalizing, and I don't intend my remarks to apply to all Democrats by any means. But too many of them engage in this kind of hell-bent-for-victory-at-any-cost strategy. Marshall's use of the "ick" factor is simply one of too many instances of this kind of thing.

If you're straight, you may find gay sex icky. Many gays find straight sex icky. I don't myself, but I have not lived an exclusively gay life. More than that, I find sex between consenting adults entirely fabulous and completely non-icky. I think sex is wonderful and great, and one of the unbelievably incredible pleasures of being alive. The ick factor finds virtually no place at all in my view of sex. I think pornography is fabulous too, and I even own gay pornography! And I enjoy it! A lot! Sue me.

But please don't use the ick factor as a political strategy. It helps no one in the long run, and it does tremendous damage. Sex is crucially important to our happiness and well-being. It is a tragedy of epic proportions that the Western tradition is one dominated by a profoundly negative perspective about sex, and about sexual pleasure.

Above all, sex should never, ever be a political tool, used to achieve transitory political advantage. Sex is not shameful to any degree at all, but using it in this manner most certainly is.